<p>Let us play what would happen game few weeks from now (it may be mute by tomorrow)</p>
<p>If Hillary or Obama gets the needed 2,025 every one will be happy. But let us suppose the following scenerios.</p>
<li><p>If Hillary is short of say about 100 delegates would she bow out?</p></li>
<li><p>If Hillary is short by say 50 ‘elected’ delegates, but has total larger than Obama, should Obama bow out? (still no one has 2,025).</p></li>
<li><p>If Obama has more delegates (elected + super) (but still no magic 2,025) what should she do? bow out or claim that she has won all the large states. If she presses on what will Obama supporter do?</p></li>
<li><p>If Hillary is short by 50 ‘elected’ delegates but reaches the magic number via super delegates would Obama supporters cry foul? what will they do?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I think any success today, well as they view success, will keep Hilary in the race. And I say success as they see it given that just a few weeks ago she was something like 20 points ahead in texas and ohio and is now holding on by a thread if at all. So hardly victory as I see it, but not from their self absorbed viewpoint and their irrational view of (their) entitlement to the throne.</p>
<p>Her and Bill’s ego are such that they will never quit, especially as they see Obama as some undeserving upstart taking away their entitlement for another four years and it is definitely seen by them as THEIR entitlement. This is the first co-presidency coming our way if she is elected. Bill ain’t gonna be taking a back seat.</p>
<p>I also feel the Clinton’s intend to stay in to tear up Obama as much as possible and I don’t think for one second they would seriously support him if he is to prevail. They are looking at 2012 if she can’t pull it off now. She’ll never be able to wait for 2016, there’s not enough botox in the world. At this point I don’t think she knows if her eyes are open or shut. </p>
<p>If it’s not obvious, I think the Clinton’s are immoral, unethical, “all about me” old school politicians, who i have NO use for.</p>
<p>I think many supporters of Obama, especially the youth, will vanish if Obama is not the nominee, just as in 1968 when Humphrey got the nod and all those that backed McCarthy and RFK took a powder and let Tricky Dick rise from the ashes. Same scenario here and McCain will be the next President if Hilary gets the nod over Obama.</p>
<p>The vitriolic opining is inappropriate for this question. What does botox have to do with the future of the Democratic party? Why should we care whether anyone dyes their hair or buffs their fingernails? None of us can read the minds of others. We project and we judge, and we are most often wrong.</p>
<p>simba well, my post addresses the immediate future of the party, which is your question is it not. So my post has everything to do with your question or did you want a 50 year projection?</p>
<p>And as to post #4, excuse me, I wasn’t aware that I was supposed to answer the question as you want it answered.</p>
<p>Also, as to post #4, lighten up, it was humor directed to what her age will be in 2016 and as with McCain now, I believe her age would be an issue in 2016 if she had to wait that long for her little girl fantasy to come true at the expense of this country. </p>
<p>Don’t take yourself so seriously but thank you two so much for being the judge of what is appropriate for my response and what isn’t. Next time why don’t you just respond for me. I think that’s what they are presently doing for the people in Russia.</p>
<p>What a surprise! Isn’t that plan B anyway? Then there will be plan C in the form of more legal wrangling. We may get to Plan W before the Clintons’ realize that the dream of a Clinton encore has all but vanished, and the most hurtful pill to swallow is that she is rejected by her own dearest Democrats.</p>
<p>Fwiw, were she to pull it off, the cost of her shenanigans to overcome the shortage of votes and electoral support will be high among Obama supporters. The Republicans could not have written a better scenario.</p>
<p>President McCain? That has a nice twist to it!</p>
<p>PS As far as the future of the Democratic Party, there is one and it should be bright one. All it’d take is stopping looking at the future in the rearview mirror. As long as one is selling 35 years of experience, it will remain easy to check the record correctly and make an appraisal of what it really means. Clinging to the party of Reid, Pelosi, Clinton will only lead to more Daschling of the “progressive” party. A Marshall Plan for the US anyone? </p>
<p>i see lorelei, so now you’ve insulted me twice to make your point that I shouldn’t be insulting (which is only about that you don’t like what I’ve said about your candidate, the self appointed heiress to the throne). Such circuitous (il)logic is always so entertaining.</p>
<p>Voicing concern about her age, whether done humorously or otherwise is a legitimate concern. I’m not being insulting or mocking her as YOU are doing in your comments to me. If this is not an issue for you, so be it. I see it as a legitimate concern. There are retirement laws in this country, there are age limitations in most any arena; if that to you is mocking, so be it.</p>
<p>More to the point, I voiced my opinion on the TOPIC, why don’t you do the same. If you’d like to turn this into personal insults, well that is clearly what you and your candidate are about, and I am not interested in engaging you in that and, of course, with you being the self appointed judge of what is appropriate and intelligent what would be the point.</p>
<p>None of the voters in states which have not yet had the chance to vote should be disenfranchised, and the voters in Florida and Michigan are part of the national equation, regardless of what their politicians did in scheduling their primaries. It is of less interest what the exact vote margins are than that everyone gets a chance to vote in the primary phase of the election. If noone has secured the votes for the nomination, it remains an open election. The democratic process must supercede a party’s protection of its leading candidate.</p>
<p>This is not an issue of political favoritism for a particular candidate, but rather of fairness in the process and an opportunity for the entire electorate to participate. It is immaterial what any candidate’s personal motivation may or may not be. What does matter is the process as it plays out in time.</p>
<p>It’s entirely about political favoritism for a particular candidate. Would this even be discussed if Hillary had wrapped up the nomination after Super Tuesday? </p>
<p>This is all about the Clintons’ view of rules. They like them as long as they benefit from them. The rest is for the birds.</p>
<p>If Obama gets the nod he will beat McCain. Obama can pull a certain kind of conservative and Republican, but McCain can’t hope to get any kind of liberal or Democrat outside of the Anti-Hillary camp.</p>
<p>He can get independents too. Hillary can’t. McCain can take Hillary.</p>
<p>It might be moot tomorrow, but definitely not mute. </p>
<p>I’ve thought, looking at last year’s world news, especially from Iraq and Afghanistan, that this year’s presidential election was the Democrats’ to lose. And, amazingly, the Democrats may stumble upon a losing formula–a long, drawn-out nomination battle that prevents their party from focusing on beating the presumptive Republican nominee. That would be a pretty amazing loss of opportunity. So I think a lot of Democratic Party figures are going to convince some candidate, soon, to drop out of the race, the better to have one candidate the whole party can unite behind as the general election race begins in earnest.</p>
<p>If Clinton goes on after tonight, the Republicans will have a free 7 weeks to define Obama even as she continues to pummel him. I’m beginning to think that she cares less about the party or about Democrats winning the White House than she does preserving her chances to run in 2012 against McCain. That makes me really angry.</p>
<p>"I’m beginning to think that she cares less about the party or about Democrats winning the White House than she does preserving her chances to run in 2012 against McCain. " Now you get it. With Hillary, it’s always about her winning, not about the party she represents winning. She lacks the ability to step back and look at the “Big Picture”. Her desire to hang on in the face of 13 losses means she is in great danger of becoming a bigger spoiler than Ross Perot and Nader, if come Nov. the next president isn’t a Democrat.</p>
<p>No one is going to get 2,025 - let the entire country vote. This is like saying after the results of few eastern states in general election, the loser of those states should concede.</p>
<p>after super Tuesday did you call Obama to sit out when he was about 150 delegates short?</p>